PURPOSE: Advance directives have been criticized for failing to help physicians make decisions consistent with patients' wishes. This pilot study sought to determine if an interactive, computer-based decision aid that generates an advance directive can help physicians accurately translate patients' wishes into treatment decisions. METHODS: We recruited 19 patient-participants who had each previously created an advance directive using a computer-based decision aid, and 14 physicians who had no prior knowledge of the patient-participants. For each advance directive, three physicians were randomly assigned to review the advance directive and make five to six treatment decisions for each of six (potentially) end-of-life clinical scenarios. From the three individual physicians' responses, a "consensus physician response" was generated for each treatment decision (total decisions = 32). This consensus response was shared with the patient whose advance directive had been reviewed, and she/he was then asked to indicate how well the physician translated his/her wishes into clinical decisions. RESULTS: Patient-participants agreed with the consensus physician responses 84 percent (508/608) of the time, including 82 percent agreement on whether to provide mechanical ventilation, and 75 percent on decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Across the six vignettes, patient-participants' rating of how well physicians translated their advance directive into medical decisions was 8.4 (range = 6.5-10, where 1 = extremely poorly, and 10 = extremely well). Physicians' overall rating of their confidence at accurately translating patients' wishes into clinical decisions was 7.8 (range = 6.1-9.3, 1 = not at all confident, 10 = extremely confident). CONCLUSION: For simulated cases, a computer-based decision aid for advance care planning can help physicians more confidently make end-of-life decisions that patients will endorse.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Advance directives have been criticized for failing to help physicians make decisions consistent with patients' wishes. This pilot study sought to determine if an interactive, computer-based decision aid that generates an advance directive can help physicians accurately translate patients' wishes into treatment decisions. METHODS: We recruited 19 patient-participants who had each previously created an advance directive using a computer-based decision aid, and 14 physicians who had no prior knowledge of the patient-participants. For each advance directive, three physicians were randomly assigned to review the advance directive and make five to six treatment decisions for each of six (potentially) end-of-life clinical scenarios. From the three individual physicians' responses, a "consensus physician response" was generated for each treatment decision (total decisions = 32). This consensus response was shared with the patient whose advance directive had been reviewed, and she/he was then asked to indicate how well the physician translated his/her wishes into clinical decisions. RESULTS:Patient-participants agreed with the consensus physician responses 84 percent (508/608) of the time, including 82 percent agreement on whether to provide mechanical ventilation, and 75 percent on decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Across the six vignettes, patient-participants' rating of how well physicians translated their advance directive into medical decisions was 8.4 (range = 6.5-10, where 1 = extremely poorly, and 10 = extremely well). Physicians' overall rating of their confidence at accurately translating patients' wishes into clinical decisions was 7.8 (range = 6.1-9.3, 1 = not at all confident, 10 = extremely confident). CONCLUSION: For simulated cases, a computer-based decision aid for advance care planning can help physicians more confidently make end-of-life decisions that patients will endorse.
Authors: Peter H Ditto; Jill A Jacobson; William D Smucker; Joseph H Danks; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jane R Schubart; Benjamin H Levi; Fabian Camacho; Megan Whitehead; Elana Farace; Michael J Green Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Michael J Green; Lauren J Van Scoy; Andrew J Foy; Renee R Stewart; Ramya Sampath; Jane R Schubart; Erik B Lehman; Anne E F Dimmock; Ashley M Bucher; Lisa S Lehmann; Alyssa F Harlow; Chengwu Yang; Benjamin H Levi Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Jane R Schubart; Fabian Camacho; Michael J Green; Kimberly A Rush; Benjamin H Levi Journal: BMJ Support Palliat Care Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Elizabeth Thiede; Benjamin H Levi; Daniella Lipnick; Rhonda Johnson; In Seo La; Erik B Lehman; Theresa Smith; Debra Wiegand; Michael Green; Lauren Jodi Van Scoy Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Rae R A Petrucha; Elizabeth G Hansen; Lindsay D Ironside; Olivia J M Lafrance; Rhonda D T Bryce; Nicole A Jacobson; Vivian R Ramsden Journal: Can Geriatr J Date: 2022-03-02